Re: Witch Stands up for Her Rights 
Jenny
jennyg@compuserve.com
Wed Oct 21 06:11:10 1998
Beirdd wrote,*br*: Interesting article. It didn't seem that there was any *br*: bigotry or ignorance there until the symbol in question was *br*: protested. You never know...*p*Hmm... I disagree.  Prejudice like this doesn't appear overnight.  The hatred was always there.  But as long as everyone acted "normal", as long as they pretended that they were Christian, it had no target.  White supremicists can seem very nice -- when everyone around them's white.*p*I found it very interesting that the fish symbol was adopted to show the town's love of "religion".  Which implies, strongly, that things other than Christianity are not religion.*p*: As one who could lose his job for wearing a religious *br*: symbol, *any* religious symbol, visibly, I must say that I *br*: expect that one day our ever heightened sensitivity will *br*: require laws against all of these symbols we hold so dear *br*: ever being seen by anyone, including us. A locked medicine *br*: chest will be the new tabernacle, wherein we hide our *br*: sigils, pentacles, crosses, stars, and crescents for fear *br*: that a Peeping Tom may become mortally offended and succeed *br*: in setting a legal precedent at our expense.*p*I don't think that's what's going on here, at all.  This has nothing to do with private actions.  No one's saying that people can't paint their houses in fishes, if that's what they wish to do.  What the ACLU is saying is that a town cannot favor one religion over another by adopting its symbols as the town's own. *p*I fully accept that if we allow discrimination against one religion, we allow it against all.  And that because of this, it's often necessary to fight hard to defend the rights of other faiths such as Christianity.  But I think that the town stepped over the line here, and the reactions of the townspeople give ample evidence of why the line had to be drawn in the first place.*p*I used to work for Cornell University, which banned all displays of religious symbols in the workplace.  I thought that was a terribly noxious ruling and one begging to be challenged.  The University's argument is that as employees we are representatives of the University, and if we were to display a religious symbol it would imply that the University favored that faith.  To me, that's silly:  it would be as if in this case, the ACLU had insisted that the town aldermen couldn't wear crosses.*p*Cornell's "compromise" was to have a ban in theory and then, in actuality, to turn a blind eye to violators.  (Not a particularly sensible solution, in my book!)*p*My boss was a fundamentalist and had numerous small crosses placed throughout her office, so one day I brought in a little pentacle and put it beside my adding machine, where no one could see it unless they were sitting at my desk.  Unfortunately, my boss was in the habit of sitting at my desk and darn near swallowed her tongue.  She took me -- into her cross-bedecked office! <g> -- and explained that University policy forbade the display of religious symbols, so I had to remove my pentacle.  I pointed out her six or seven crosses, and I said, "Sandy, we have a choice.  If we can act like reasonable, tolerant adults, we can both have our symbols.  But if I have to hide mine, I'm going to insist that you hide yours too."  She thought about it for a bit and decided that that pentacle wasn't quite so intolerable as she'd figured.*p*Jenny
Re: Witch Stands up for Her Rights 
Beirdd
84
Tue Oct 20 23:01:27 1998